Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

493 So. 2d 89

493 So.2d 89

11 Fla.L.Weekly 1903

Superdock v. Superdock

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided September 3, 1986

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1986-09-03

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1988

1 state decisions

Relies on 384 So. 2d 317 - Stith v. Stith · 465 So. 2d 637 - McClung v. McClung · 490 So. 2d 225 - Sobelman v. Sobelman

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1986-09-03

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1The final judgment of dissolution is affirmed in all respects except as to the provision of paragraph 16 that the wife be designated as beneficiary of the husband’s life insurance. See Sobelman v. Sobelman, 490 So.2d 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); McClung v. McClung, 465 So.2d 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Stith v. Stith, 384 So.2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).

¶2We remand to the trial court to strike that portion of paragraph 16 applicable to the wife or to make findings of fact and amend the final judgment so that the life insurance award meets the requirements of section 61.08(3), Florida Statutes (1985) and the above cases.

¶3*90AFFIRMED, IN PART, REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.

DOWNEY, GUNTHER and STONE, JJ., concur.1
/493/so2d/89 · .json · Public domain